get_series

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full load and does so well: it discloses the default window behavior and enumerates point varieties (reported with full provenance, computed with named inputs, gap with state and no value, XBRL with later-filing revisions and a `restated` flag). It omits error behavior for unknown ticker/series_id and any pagination or rate-limit characteristics.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The core action leads, followed by return-shape detail; every sentence describes an actual output variant rather than padding. It is dense but each clause earns its place, particularly since no output schema exists.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description usefully compensates by describing return structures in detail. It is still incomplete regarding how to obtain ticker/series_id/tier values and what happens on invalid input.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it only partially does: it explains `start`/`end` as fiscal labels (e.g., FY2024Q1) defaulting to the whole window, which is genuine value beyond the schema. However, `ticker`, `series_id`, and especially `tier` are left entirely unexplained, so most parameters remain opaque.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb+resource: it returns one series' quarterly points over a window. It is clear what the tool fetches, but it never distinguishes itself from siblings like list_metrics (which presumably yields series_ids) or check_condition.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives among list_companies, list_metrics, and check_condition. The agent must infer that this is the tool for reading an already-known series_id over the default or specified window.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.